Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Ronald Brownstein - Why Clark may be best choice for VP

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Quixote1818 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 12:45 AM
Original message
Ronald Brownstein - Why Clark may be best choice for VP
Edited on Tue May-04-04 03:13 PM by Skinner
RONALD BROWNSTEIN / WASHINGTON OUTLOOK

If Election Hinges on Iraq, Kerry May Need Added Firepower
Ronald Brownstein

May 3, 2004
Conventional wisdom among Democratic strategists has been that sooner or later national security will recede as a concern and bread-and-butter domestic issues will decide the presidential election. One senior party operative recently offered what he called the Google theory of 2004: If an Internet search about the campaign the day after the election turns up more references to Iraq than to the economy, that probably means President Bush has won.

But the continuing violence in Iraq is shaking these assumptions. It's no longer certain that domestic issues such as jobs and healthcare will displace Iraq as the central focus of public attention and the campaign debate. Nor is it certain that sustained attention on Iraq will benefit the president.

This transformed landscape will challenge both Bush and his Democratic opponent, Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts.

The dangers for Bush are most obvious. Iraq is his war. Bob Woodward, in "Plan of Attack," his extraordinary new book on the administration's march to the invasion, describes Vice President Dick Cheney as "a powerful, steamrolling force" for war.

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

Article continues at:

http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-na-outlook3may03,1,3725502.c...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
LeinesRed Donating Member (735 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 12:53 AM
Response to Original message
1. Agree! Agree!
."Clark may pack more firepower" ..and have you ever noticed how the conservative pundits always quickly shoot down any hope of Clark as a possible VP candidate? Meethinks they protest a little too loudly...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madeuplikebowie Donating Member (124 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 12:57 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Clark is winning me over
as choice for the vp spot. I like edwards, but I dont think he will bring much besides charisma to the ticket . I don't know. I would be happy if either one were vp.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 01:03 AM
Response to Original message
3. The reason the Bush campaign is spending so much to paint Kerry
weak on defense is that he isn't, and they know it. This 'lack of security credentials' nonsense is a straw man.

Edwards would be a stronger, more dynamic VP and would be a perfect balance to Kerry's reserved nature.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quixote1818 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 01:04 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. But Republicans are more attracted to Clark than Edwards
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 01:05 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Based on?
His flip-flopping political leanings will only fuel the fire of the GOP's misplaced characterization of Kerry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quixote1818 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 01:06 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. Kerry voted against the Persian Gulf War seems he could use
some shoring up by picking Clark.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 01:11 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Shoring up?
Are you relishing the RW bringing up Clark's ordered attack on the Russian army at Pristina Airport, nearly starting WWIII?

I'm not, and I despite Clark's long military service I don't think he brings nearly as much to the foreign policy table as a lot of people do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RafterMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 01:15 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. I am too,
Edited on Tue May-04-04 01:16 AM by RafterMan
because Clark didn't order an attack on the Russian army at Pristina Airport and almost start WWIII.

I enjoy embarrassing people who use made-up shit in their attacks.

(edit spelling)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quixote1818 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 01:17 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. I thought the Clark starting WWIII MYTH had died a good death
You must have had to go to a pretty out dated wacko site to pull that up again. Sean Hannity never even had the guts to use that one against Clark but the far, far left sure likes to use it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 01:26 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. Read and weep
On June 12, 1999, in the immediate aftermath of NATO's air war against Yugoslavia, a small contingent of Russian troops dashed to occupy the Pristina airfield in Kosovo. Clark was so anxious to stop the Russians that he ordered an airborne assault to confront these units-an order which could have unleashed the most frightening showdown with Moscow since the end of the Cold War. Hyperbole? You can decide. But British General Michael Jackson, the commander of the NATO international force K-FOR, told Clark: "Sir, I'm not starting WWIII for you," when refusing to accept his order to prevent Russian forces from taking over the airport.

After being rebuffed by Jackson, Clark, according to various media reports at the time, then ordered the American Admiral James Ellis to use Apache helicopters to occupy the airfield. Ellis didn't comply either. Had Clark's orders been followed, the subsequent NATO-negotiated compromise with the Russians might well have been undermined.

Source: The Nation, "Wesley Clark's 'High Noon' Moment" Sep 17, 2003
:cry:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quixote1818 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 01:31 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. It's well known that that article was a hit job against Clark. Sorry!
Edited on Tue May-04-04 01:32 AM by Quixote1818
The author pretended to be a pornography producer at the Clark meet ups to raise eye brows. It was a very strange article by a very strange reporter. :boring:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 01:38 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. Another "well known" reply
with no sources...yet Jackson's reply was documented in countless articles at the time and subsequent interviews as well.

Are we forgetting that Clark was FIRED as well by the RW you claim loves him so much? You're going to have to do better than that...:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quixote1818 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 01:50 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. You are lost in the past, please do your homework before posting
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 01:57 AM
Original message
You call that homework?
I've read that convoluted pile of subjective crap that is supposed to "debunk" the Clark incident.

Can I get a response to why Clark was fired by a group that loves him so much?

You are lost in your Clark-worship...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quixote1818 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 02:15 AM
Response to Original message
16. Clark was fired for being an independent thinker in a military world.
I have read extensively on why he was fired and the bottom line is that Clinton still loves Clark. Hell, not one American life was lost in that War. Seems they fired Clark for being too dam good. You can't argue with the fact Clark did an amazing job handling that War. Do you think he should have been fired?

Seems Iraq could use Clark at the helm. Don't you think?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 02:20 AM
Response to Original message
17. Yep....you need to do homework....before you speak...
That's what I did! If you go far down enough in the memory hole, you can often find the thruth as the events were occuring.....
A note to MODERATORS...THESE ARE ARCHIVED ARTICLES THAT I PURCHASED FROM THE NYT. I HAVE TO POST THE WHOLE THING...CAUSE THERE IS NO LINK OF REFERRAL.....

July 28, 1999, Wednesday
FOREIGN DESK

U.S. General Who Led NATO to Retire Ahead of Schedule

WASHINGTON, July 27 -- Gen. Wesley K. Clark, who led NATO forces in the war in Yugoslavia, will step down as commander of the alliance and be replaced by a high-ranking Air Force officer, White House and Pentagon officials said tonight.

The officials said General Clark, 54, would leave his post next April, three months before schedule, and retire to civilian life. His replacement will be Gen. Joseph W. Ralston, who was in line to become Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff two years ago but had to step aside because of a problem in his personal life, the officials said.

The departure of General Clark was reported in Wednesday's Washington Post, which said the move arose from disagreements that General Clark had with the Pentagon over the war in Yugoslavia. General Clark favored a tougher stance against President Slobodan Milosevic's aggression in Kosovo well before the decision to begin bombing in late March.

During the 11-week air campaign, General Clark also urged the Pentagon to let him plan for a ground invasion if the bombing did not force Serbian forces from Kosovo and end their cruelty toward Albanians in that province. And during the aerial bombardments, he repeatedly advocated more extensive air strikes.

But the White House and Pentagon officials who confirmed General Clark's impending retirement and his replacement by General Ralston characterized the change as a way to encourage General Ralston to postpone retirement and stay in uniform, rather than a maneuver to banish General Clark.

''Clark did a great job,'' the White House official said. ''He won the war, for God's sake!''

The Pentagon official offered a similar assessment. ''If this was in any way dissatisfaction with Clark, he'd be moved out long before,'' the official said.

Both officials, who said they are familiar with the events that began to unfold today, spoke on condition they not be identified.

They described the change-over as part of a series of moves involving high-ranking officers that will be announced in coming months.

General Clark, interviewed by The Washington Post from Brussels, declined to comment on what he might do next. ''There is a long time yet to do this job, and I've got to keep my attention on it,'' he said.

The White House official said Defense Secretary William S. Cohen wanted to do something ''to keep Joe Ralston in uniform.''

The general, a much-decorated pilot who flew more than 100 combat missions in Vietnam and has been in the Air Force for 34 years, seemed about to become Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1997.

But he disclosed that he had had an adulterous affair in the mid-1980's. While the affair was hardly scandalous by the standards of sexual escapades that have embarrassed the military in recent years, it was enough to keep him in the post of Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

General Ralston's term as vice chairman is up in February and, by law, he would have to land a new military job within 60 days or revert to a lower rank and retire. Therefore, they said, the position that General Clark now holds was the logical step for General Ralston, especially since General Clark's term has already been extended.

The post of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is not open, because the incumbent, Gen. Henry H. Shelton of the Army, was named to another two-year term two months ago.

General Clark, like President Clinton, grew up in Arkansas and attended Oxford University as a Rhodes scholar, but their time there did not overlap. Unlike some high-ranking officers, he seemed at ease in the diplomatic arena.

General Ralston is described by admirers as a first-rate officer whose career was momentarily derailed by his personal lapse. The general has confirmed that he had an affair with a civilian intelligence analyst in the mid-1980's while the two were students at the National War College and while the general and his wife were separated.

July 29, 1999, Thursday: FOREIGN DESK

Clinton's Adviser Defends Decision to Retire NATO General

WASHINGTON, July 28 -- The President's top security adviser today defended the decision to speed up the retirement of the NATO Supreme Commander, Gen. Wesley K. Clark, by a few months to make way for his intended replacement, and the adviser insisted that the move did not signal any displeasure with the general's performance.

''General Clark is a superb commander,'' Samuel R. Berger, the national security adviser, said. ''The President has the highest degree of confidence in him.''


Over the weekend, Defense Secretary William S. Cohen chose Gen. Joseph W. Ralston, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as his candidate to succeed General Clark as the head of United States forces in Europe and NATO commander.

Administration officials said moving General Ralston to the prestigious NATO post was the Pentagon's primary motive.

General Ralston is required by law to leave his current post by February, because he will have served the maximum four years. That timetable led in turn to the decision to ask General Clark to leave his post a few months early. He had been scheduled to retire next summer, when his extended term would have ended.

NATO officials said General Clark was taken aback by the suddenness of the decision to have him retire in April or May, a message relayed to him by telephone on Tuesday while he was traveling.

''His assumption was that he would remain as long as he was doing a good job,'' a NATO official said. ''This came sooner than expected.''

Several officials felt compelled to dismiss any notion that the general's many disagreements with the Pentagon and other NATO members in the Kosovo conflict might have contributed to the decision. General Clark urged a more aggressive bombing campaign and asked the Pentagon for speedier deployment of equipment and troops.

His insistence that NATO prepare for the possibility of a ground war was at odds with the Administration, which did not want to pursue an invasion that would be publicly unpopular.

Officials went to great lengths to play down the friction and turn the spotlight on the promotion of General Ralston.

Mr. Cohen and Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright joined today in praising General Clark.

''He's done an outstanding job in serving this capacity as Commander of the European Forces and Supreme Allied Commander,'' Mr. Cohen said at a news conference in Tokyo.

Last Thursday, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Hugh H. Shelton, met senior military commanders, including General Clark, in Tampa, Fla., but nothing was said to General Clark about his impending early retirement, several officials who were at the meeting said.

On Tuesday, when General Shelton telephoned General Clark who was on an official visit to Lithuania, to tell him the news, General Clark was upset that he had not been told in Florida, a NATO official said.

A spokesman for General Shelton said that the Chairman had telephoned General Clark as soon as the final decision was made over the weekend and that General Ralston had agreed to be a candidate.

General Clark said today that he considered the action part of a routine change of command. ''When a soldier's journey is over, it's over,'' he said in Vilnius, Lithuania, according to the Baltic News Service.

At the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill, reaction to was muted.

''I think this is much ado about very little here,'' said Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, a Texas Republican who opposed the Kosovo bombing but is close to General Clark. ''I don't think this is in any way a slap at General Clark. It's not unusual to make a two- or three-month adjustment in someone's tour to accommodate another officer.''

Lawmakers and officers praised General Ralston, who is 55. ''Joe Ralston will be very good,'' said Tillie Fowler, a Florida Republican who is on the House Armed Services Committee.

A highly decorated former combat pilot in Vietnam and an administrator known for his skills at building a consensus, General Ralston withdrew from consideration for Chairman of the Joint chiefs two years, ago after it became known that he had an affair in the 1980's while separated from his wife.

He had planned to retire next year to Anchorage, Alaska. But in his last two years as vice chairman, his 18-hour days, for example seeing to details like accompanying Ms. Albright to visit the Chinese Ambassador here on the night a NATO plane bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, helped erase military and Administration concerns that he could not surmount the adultery reports.

Mr. Cohen cited General Ralston's ''diplomatic skills, his war capabilities and his war record.''


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 02:23 AM
Response to Original message
18. Homework answers also available here....
Edited on Tue May-04-04 02:42 AM by Frenchie4Clark
Go here for more Cramming with facts....instead of fiction
http://frenchiecat.forclark.com/story/2003/11/23/203932/69

and you should read this: THE UNAPPRECIATED GENERAL
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A51403-2000May1¬Found=true

ALSO READ THIS SERIES OF 12 ARTICLES CIRCA 1999-2000 THAT ALSO DEALS WITH CLARK KOSOVO SERVICE AND THE SHELTON-COHEN CABAL.
http://wesleyclark.h1.ru/departure.htm

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RafterMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 01:57 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. Yeah, but
you still haven't explained his nefarious involvement with the Homestead Act :-P !
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katusha Donating Member (592 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 05:14 AM
Response to Reply #10
20. this is a more reliable source
Testimony of Zbigniew Brzezinski
to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee

October 6, 1999

http://www.csis.org/hill/ts991006zb.html

The same day, June 10, a Russian military contingent left its position in Bosnia, and -- benefiting from full Serbian cooperation -- moved swiftly through Serbia toward Kosovo. As this was happening, the Russian government reassured U.S. Vice President Al Gore that the Russian contingent would not enter Kosovo. The White House then disallowed the NATO commander's plan to execute a pre-emptive seizure of Pristina, Kosovo's capital. On June 12 at 1:30 AM the Russian forces entered Pristina and, with Serbian military assistance, took up defensive positions at the airport, barring the later arriving NATO forces. (According to some intelligence reports, the Russians secured some military equipment there that they had previously provided to the Serbs.)

A detailed account in the Moskovskiy Komsomolets of June 14 tells the rest of the story -- both what happened and what did not happen. Crowing over the Russian military coup and over Serbian crowds in Pristina burning U.S. and British flags, the paper said that as of June 12 a contingent of 2,500 Russian paratroopers was ready to be flown into Pristina, and that "it has already been decided that Russia will have its own sector" in Kosovo. The report noted that although Hungary had denied Russia its air space, "this is not a problem -- Bulgaria, for example, gave the go-ahead. Our planes could make a detour -- from the Russian coast over the Black Sea and Bulgaria straight to Kosovo." In other words, Kosovo would be partitioned by a unilateral fiat, whether NATO liked it or not.

Indeed, on June 12, the Bulgarian government was confronted with a request from Moscow for overflight rights for six Russian planes, allegedly to deliver supplies to the Russian force in Pristina. The Bulgarians were even informed that the first plane was to take off at dawn, hours before the delivery of the request.

Alas for the Kremlin, things did not turn out so. Not only Hungary, a NATO member, but Bulgaria and Romania refused access to their air space, and the Kremlin prudently decided that it could not run the risk of having its air transports forced down. As a result, the Russian contingent in Pristina was left stranded. In the meantime the Serbian forces, by then in full retreat on exposed roads, could not reverse course without facing enormous vulnerability to resumed air attacks. For a week the Kremlin continued to insist on a separate sector, but on June 18 Russia reluctantly agreed to have its troops dispersed within the U.S., French and German zones.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 06:36 AM
Response to Reply #10
23. An article regurgitating leftest propaganda in The Nation.
Edited on Tue May-04-04 06:37 AM by Kahuna
:boring: Not exactually original.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 06:35 AM
Response to Reply #9
22. It did. I've heard more about that yarn from the far left than from..
wingnuts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 06:34 AM
Response to Reply #7
21. They already played that tune. It went nowhere...
The only thing the right has on Clark is crap the make up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #21
26. Ironic....
I feel like I am defending Wes Clark all over again! It's ok....maybe we will be needed soon!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Myra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 01:36 AM
Response to Original message
12. I'm trying not to get my hopes up again
Clark should have been our Dem nominee.
But it seems the US is destined never to have a leader
of his superior caliber.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crunchy Frog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 02:52 AM
Response to Reply #12
19. Hey Myra,
Where have you been? I've missed you around here. It's nice to see you again, and I hope we'll be seeing more of you here.

I know exactly what you're talking about with getting your hopes up. I'm trying as hard as I can not to set myself up for another dissapointment, but I still know that I'll be heartbroken yet again if Wes is not picked for VP.

I hope you're doing OK.:hug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moderator DU Moderator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 10:43 AM
Response to Original message
24. Quixote1818
Per DU copyright rules please
post only four paragraphs
from the news source.


Thank you.

DU Moderator
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
balanced Donating Member (188 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 11:04 AM
Response to Original message
25. Perfect.
"Those who didn't serve, or didn't show up for service," he wrote, "should have the decency to respect those who did ... "

Go Clark.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RedEarth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-04-04 04:16 PM
Response to Original message
27. Clark is the one I would like to see.....
I think he would make an excellent VP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 08:29 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC